Not sure what the surveyor (an RCE) was trying to accomplish with the "cannot be relied on" phrase. Does he really think that he didn't establish the 1/4 section lines?
P.S. The map was filed in 1987 by a reputable firm.
Just out of curiosity, are preliminary title reports (which I assume are what are known in Texas as Commitments for Land Title Insurance) recorded in the public records in California? Would a person have the means to know what exactly that report by Ticor Title Insurance Co. described without having access to it from a private source?
Does the map make any sense strictly as a reference document to the title report?
> Not sure what the surveyor (an RCE) was trying to accomplish with the "cannot be relied on" phrase.
The surveyor maybe didn't like the title company's rewrite of the legal description.
> Just out of curiosity, are preliminary title reports (which I assume are what are known in Texas as Commitments for Land Title Insurance) recorded in the public records in California?
In CA a prelim is one step back from a commitment, which in turn is one step back from an insurance policy. There's no reliable means of tracking down the details of a prelim via the public record.
> Would a person have the means to know what exactly that report by Ticor Title Insurance Co. described without having access to it from a private source?
In a word, no.
> Does the map make any sense strictly as a reference document to the title report?
I suppose the note was meant to convey the notion that the heavy dashed lines don't necessarily represent lines of ownership, not that the section lines and 1/4 section lines are unreliable. However, the wording was overly broad if that was the intended purpose.
> ..are preliminary title reports ... recorded in the public records in California?
They are not recorded in Oregon or Washington. And, yes, they are pretty much the same as a Commitment for Land Title Insurance. At least the Oklahoma version is.
> > Does the map make any sense strictly as a reference document to the title report?
>
> I suppose the note was meant to convey the notion that the heavy dashed lines don't necessarily represent lines of ownership, not that the section lines and 1/4 section lines are unreliable. However, the wording was overly broad if that was the intended purpose.
So, I take it there wouldn't be any easy way to discover whether this map was referenced in the Commitment for Land Title Insurance once it was finalized. It sort of sounds as if the surveyor is saying "this is what some title insurance company is willing to insure, but don't think it's my opinion". Odd thing for a surveyor to say, but I'm unfamiliar with California practice.
It Is A Plotting, Not A Survey
Without a key to what the monument symbols mean, it is hard to understand.
From the surveyors words it appears to be a plotting of title information. There is no indication that the surveyor was in the field and had sufficient data to actually establish the center of section.
I would assume the surveyor worked from some title data and possibly field notes. The title company may have needed a pretty picture to look at.
Title companies usually have surveys (which they don't often share) of tracts in their files and have the ability to plot out descriptions. Every once in a while they will send out a description and want a surveyor to interpret the words. Generally some ambiguity or scribner's error or both has them unable to connect the dots. Oft times you send them back your best guess and hope they do not reply with a survey request.
Paul in PA
The note starts our "This Survey is to be used"
Did he actually make a survey or is he simply showing a sketch of what the title report shows of record?
There is often several versions of the Preliminary Report.
No they aren't recorded. The Title Policy isn't recorded either.
It Is A Plotting, Not A Survey
The open circles are typically a dimension point.
The other symbol is probably a found monument.
Looks to me like the surveyor generated the drawing specifically (probably at the request of others) to show the common line between the subject property and the adjoining property to the west.
The property to the west has record and measured dimensions shown. He probably got 'hooked' into determining the boundary of an adjoining parcel to satisfy the title commitment.
My guess is the surveyor was asked to determine that the common line was indeed just that, and not a gore or hiatus. His wording is a bit cryptic though...
I have prepared
something similar to this for attorneys or owners because they didn't have a plat to work from (Georgia is not a required filing State). BUT, I don't state that it is a survey (unless I did survey it) rather call it a "Sketch prepared from (whatever document) and NOT FOR RECORDING".
Andy
I fall in the camp that the word "survey" means that the drawing represents a survey. In our lexicon, survey means something that occurs on the ground.
Although we call the paper a survey sometimes, we all know that it is an exhibit that represents the results of the survey.
So, one would hope the legend combined with the symbols clearly shows what was measured and what was calculated.
If this is not the case, then this is intended to be a useless panacea for a client, and the note is supposed to be evidence to that effect for any future surveyor.
> I fall in the camp that the word "survey" means that the drawing represents a survey. In our lexicon, survey means something that occurs on the ground.
This is a California Record of Survey, which is by definition the result of a field survey. The surveyor is representing that the measurements shown comport with the standard of practice. The cryptic note must pertain to some unresolved title matter, but I'm surprised that the County Surveyor allowed such broad wording to be used.
It Is A Plotting, Not A Survey
The open circles appear to represent the property corners that fall in the roadway and the other symbols represent probably set corners, noting the symbol at the intersection of the proerty line and the R/W line.
The overall plat seems to be "just a sketch" for the benefit of the title company. Lools like they only wanted 2 corners identified for some reason.
Although the comment is broad in nature it may be due to it being a survey of only a portion of the boundary and therefore he is trying to disclaim the lack of improvements shown, etc.
Licensed Land Surveyor
Finger Lakes Region, Upstate New York
"Survey" Per ACSM Definitions
Definition 4. "To inspect or investigate something in order to determine its state or condition."
Many surveyors use the term Topographic Survey etc. for work that may not be a
"Boundary Survey", "Cadastral Survey", "Land Survey" or "Property Survey".
It may have been a survey of the record not a Record Survey.
Paul in PA
I can only speculate just what the writer was thinking with that note. Looks like an open door for lawyers to futz with. That's the problem.
Any such notes should be just like a good description. Unambiguouse, certain as to meaning, with not but one rational interpretation. This is a rule of surveying that includes notes of any sort. "IP/f/s" is engineers BS for non-descript data of little consequence.
Get someone else to read your notes. Do they know for certain what you meant?? If not, rewrite is in order.
Note like that always make me cringe. They usually point out the things that are negligent, or wrong, about the survey.
"Survey" Per ACSM Definitions
> It may have been a survey of the record not a Record Survey.
In California a Record of Survey is required by statute to depict the results of a survey that conforms to the standard of practice. If it shows what a reasonable person would interpret as property lines, the practitioner can be held liable for damages that result from reliance upon those lines. It can't be a "well, the lines might be here, but then again they might be somewhere else" map. I know of at least one licensee whose license was sanctioned for claiming that his ROS was of the latter character.
